On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:26:08 -0000, sms wrote:

On 2/13/2016 8:48 PM, wrote:

The insurance companies definitely feel differently about it than you
do. And so do many other motoring safety groups In 5 minutes I could
likely find 10 or more studies showing there is a safety advantage to
counter every one of yours stating there is not.

A NHTSA study in 2004 entitled "An Assessment of the Crash-Reducing
Effectiveness of Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)" found
the followinng:

DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by €“6.3 percent
that is DRLs increase opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 6.3
percent.

DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by €“7.9
percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal
crashes by 7.9 percent.

DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities
in single-vehicle crashes by 3.8 percent.

DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger
vehicle with a motorcycle by 26 percent.

Definitely mixed results, but not unexpected.

They're increasing accidents in the very area they're meant to help in - seeing another car coming the other way. And helping where I'd expect worse crashes - distracting you from seeing an unlit pedestrian. Perhaps they remind pedestrians to look before crossing (do we care about morons who don't look?). The main problem is they dazzle other motorists so you they can't judge where the edge of your car is. This is documented on websites complaining about DRLs, where the people complaining are professional optometrists etc who know what they're talking about.

--
There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In Jewish tradition, the foetus is not considered viable until it graduates from law school.